Teofilo Stevensson

That's not an indication of anything.
Abdullaev beat Cotto in amateurs.
We all saw what happened in the real ring, when they met again.
Tillis, I believe, defeated Tyson twice in amateurs (or was it Mathis?).
We all saw what happened in the real ring, when they met again.

Laslo Papp was a 3-times Olympic champion and he's even in the IBHOF.
Yet, he spent 8 years in pros, without beating anyone of note.

There's absolutely no indication WHATSOEVER that success in amateurs means anything in the pros.
Sure, there're great amateurs who've become great pros.
Just as there're great amateurs who didn't achieve anything in the pros.

 

dsimon writes:

Lol ::. The german robot beats Sam Peter after getting dropped a few times and suddenly he is the second coming.

 

for real man :: I can't believe how over-rated he has become.. I can't wait to see him KO'd like a bum

 

Why do you need to wait to see it? :dunno:
The guy's been KO'd like a bum AND by the bums numerous times already :dunno:
Heck, he's been dropped like 15 times in his last 5-6 fights.

 

dsimon writes:

It does not mean anything?:eeeek:? Yes a lot of times guys match up differently when they become pros because of their training and their development. So I guess Stevenson was a retard and would be stunted in that fashion? He would not adjust to being a pro fighter? He couldn't learn to fight more rounds for example.

There is a corrolation D just not what people would expect. The correlation is that Olympic success usually guarantees at least a decent pro career. And history reflects differently on the olmpics as times change. When Stevenson was at the head of the roost the Cubans were acknowledged as some of the world's best fighters pro or amatuer... period. That was, at that time one of the reasons guys who later became pro did not dominate the olympics.

The guys you mention were not necessarily fighting strong comp in the olymics. If comp was weak it would show a disparity when a guy became a pro.

Finally, some fighters take a longer time to develop because they have obvious weaknesses. As Karl said George Foreman was always a terror. His style changed little as an olympian (where he dominated) and as a pro (where he was dominant until he faced Ali). Tyson was nothing in the Ammie sbecause he had not developed yet. Cotto still has not developed to his full potential. It depends on the fighter.

You have to look at a guy's career more carefully than just making a blanket statement like the amateur level has no reflection on a professional career. For example, the training program in Cuba was first rate in boxing that is why they dominated and they would have been a dominant force in the pros once the differences were adjusted for. Speaking of which, the difference in rules does not make any style better. As Lok said Stevenson was knocking guys out in headgear with clean punches. That is quite an achievment!

And Stevenson did not "do well" in the olympics, he totally dominated and outclassed the opposition. There is a difference.

You are taking an isolated example of one guy who was moderately succesful (BTW) as a pro who was olmpic pedigree. Maxie Rosenblume was a pro who got in HOFA and he never even threw real punches... he slapped, and he would have no doubt been able to do the same thing against amatuers, does this mean the pros are shit and the ammies rule:dunno: ? It works both ways my Slovakian friend. ::

 

This guy Vysotsky, whose last name Donnybrook massacred, made Stevenson his bitch quite easily. Twice. And Vysotsky was completely unremarkable fighter.

 

Slovakian??? Why did you fucking have to insult me like that?
Anyhoo, back to the point.
Success and domination in amateurs means jack squat when it comes to pro.
Once again, there was a guy who dominated amateurs as much as Stevenson did. (Papp).
Unlike Stevenson, Papp did turn pro and achieved...nothing of substance....
Case closed.

 

dsimon writes:

And Buster Douglas beat Tyson when he was the most dominant heavy in history by some accounts. Ray Robinson was made a bitch by Fullmere and La motta, two guys who were tough but unremarkable when compared to a guy who some consider the best fighter in history... bar none. Many people still maintain that Cooper beat Ali.... and the list goes on.

I bet if Mayweather fought a guy like Malignolia he might get outslicked... it could happen. Sometimes a guy has your number, one of these guys a career does not make.

Donny should have just thought of Vodka with snot and he would not have massacured the poor pollack's name.:: :doh:

 

Actually Papp wasn't allowed to fight the best because of communists,for the same very reason best Cubans haven't become pros. I am sure you know this already, but you do a good job at :stir:

 

He was allowed to fight for 8 years. During these 8 eyars, he never faced anyone on the world level. As soon as he was scheduled to face the first real fighter, he preferred to leave boxing and blame "the government".

As to your "best Cubans haven't become pros" shit........was Disobelius Hurtado, for exampe, an amateur world champion? Has he not become a pro?

 

You know better than that. I'll leave it at that

I was referring to Stevensson and Savon, the two 3-time gold medallists. Also Hector Vinent, who IMHO was among the best ever, never became a pro. Out of (super)heavyweight olympic champions since 1964, Audley Harrison has been the only one who has turned pro and has not become a top-10 challenger

 

dsimon writes:

Wowe be the man who confuses Kasistan with Uzbeckastan.... apparently your one support has been exposed as dubious by Ugo.... You lost the proverbial leg to stand on.

 

I thought dymipepel was belorussian?

 

He is from a small country called Trollistan

 

No, I don't know better than that. Papp is a fraud, and not a legend.
3-time Olympic champion
8 years in professional ranks.
0 meaningful victories.

Who prevented these brave souls from leaving Cuba and trying their luck in pros, like so many other Cubans have done?
Fear of having to compete in the REAL ring? Fear of becoming failure as Papp? It's easy to be an "amateur" fighter (what a joke, they were ALL professionals) and fight 17-years old kids.......It's another thing to fight other PROFESSIONALS......Stevenson and Savon knew they'd be brutalized in pro ranks, that's why they never even tried to go for it......unlike so many other Cuban amateurs, who actually tried....sure, almost all of them became complete failures (not coming anywhere near close to matching their "amateur" achievements), but at least they had the balls to try it....

 

Stevenson-Bobick was the reason I became a huge boxing fan. Stevenson was the complete AMATEUR package..

That being said, he fought kids and he fought 3 rounds. To mythically throw him in the ring with a mature Foreman or Ali over 12 or 15 rounds is ridiculous. We have no way of knowing how Stevenson would fight in the middle rounds, let alone in the championship rounds.

Stevenson was the best ammy I ever saw, but that's as far as I would take it. We have all seen WAY to many amateur phenoms that ended up as trash in the pros.

In fact, we all know a cuban amateur phenom that beat Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, Teofilo Stevenson, and Tyrell Biggs in the amateur ranks. That guy, Jose Luis Gonzalez, ended up being a doormat in the pros.

 

:clap: :clap: :clap: Perfect example.
Now, if Jose Luis Gonzalez was never to turn pro, we'd now have guys like Dsimon and Ugo on this board right now, claiming that if he HAD turned pro, he'd dominate the shit out of everyone.....
Thankfully, he DID turn pro and we know this amateur star was a complete failure in the real ring....But at least he tried to become a pro....
Too bad, Stevenspon and Savon didn't have his balls, and we're now forced to listen to Dsimon and Ugo telling us how they WOULD'VE dominated, if they HAD turned pro......

 

Gonzalez beat Teo when Teo was way past it, and Stevenson had already beaten him multiple times before Gonzales won one over his mentor.
Gonzalez was Stevenson's sparring partner and protege for many years, and the situation was comparable to Ali-Holmes.
What happened to one fighter in the pro ranks means absolutely zero when comparing him to another fighter.

 

It does when Kid Gavilan is weighing in and saying Stevenson and Savon were fat lazy slobs who hadn't got the balls to hack it. Not my words-his. If Wladimir was still an amateur, he'd have at least 3 golds by now. Who would have stopped him? Audley???

And get that steroid monkey out of your sig!!!!:nono:

 

In fact if you read the thread closely, I have NEVER said Stevensson would have dominated the heavyweights.

You are correct in that being a succesful amateur doesn't mean that you'd be a succesful pro, but it is equally ridiculous to say that best amateurs would be easy meat for pros since many of th ebest pros have been succesful amateurs themselves. But I guess you'd pick Ernie Terrel (professiona champ) to KO in one round Olympic scrubs such as Joe Frazier and George Foreman

 

I doubt Gavilan said that as I never heard him say a bad word about any fighter, particularly not about a fellow countryman of his.
I never saw Felix or Teo with any fat on them, either.

 

Why do I need to read the thread closely? I assign to you what you said and then I demolish your position. Fair enough?

And many of the best pros have achieved nothing as amateurs.
And many of the best amateurs have achieved nothing as pros.
All I'm trying to do here is counter claims like "Stevenson WOULD dominate this and that" and "Stevenson WOULD won this and that".
I can say equally well that "Stevenson wouldn't do jack-shit and would be an easy victim to even a third-rate professional fighter" and my claim WOULD be just as valid as the opposite.

 

The problem is, you make up what I have said and then counter that.

 

Dude, Dsimon claimed that Stevenson would dominate the pros.
I demolished his position thoroughly, then, for some reason, :dunno: you felt the need to intervene and defend Teobum, so I destroyed Teobum's alleged "professional domination" once again, citing specific examples of Cuban "amateur stars" being beaten down like 2-dollar whores in pro ranks.
Got a problem with that, Kuusinen?

 

It means about as much as intimating that parlaying a sterling amateur career into an impressive pro career is automatic. It isn't. Success as a man fighting boys over 3 rounds means little when talking about 15 rounds against the likes of Ali, Frazier, Foreman, etc.

It is absolutely moronic to assume that Stevenson would have dominated professional HW boxing in the 70's just because he had amazing success as an amateur.

 

You have to take that up with whomever stated that he would dominate the pros, I didn't type that.

 

True...


I got a little heated up there..

 

dsimon writes:

:laughing: Nice. I think he got caught with his pants down on this one Ugo.

 

dsimon writes:

Gonzalez had a pretty decent professional career like most Olympians. He also didn't train seriously and some would say got destroyed by a pretty decent fighter.

I never saw any special qualities in the guy frankly. Ugo might feel differently.

 

dsimon writes:

And you never responded to any counter arguments to your position BTW, instead you just repeated your position.... Frankly as one of your few... maybe your only supporter, I expected a little better argument in support of your position. To date you have failed to respond to the following points:

1) Stevenson's abilities to both totally dominate his class and KO people in headgear.

2) the idea that at the time he was dominant Cuban fighters were considered some of the best on the world and many olmpians from that time did become gret champs BTW.

3) Ugo's claim that your take on the commy boxer you mention is dubious. You just repeat yourself

4) The idea that the differences in rules do not necessarily mean that the pros take more skill than Olympic style boxing... just different conditions was how I framed the argument.

5) Proof that you are not in fact a Serbian nationalist and not Bellerousian.

I agree that I exxagerated and Donny made me do that by making some good points that desroyed my ability to assume any level of dominance from one set of conditions to another.

Now why don't you stop grasping at straws, like Gonzalez, who had a prestty decent career as a pro, and back up your point of view.